‘How the Conservative Party Helped Cause the Riots and why Their Islamophobic Rhetoric Won’t Change’

There is no doubt that the actions of the most senior members of the Conservative Party have encouraged the riots by right-wing racist thugs that we saw recently in the UK.

That encouragement was not some unavoidable consequence of legitimate policy positions, but through actions or words that Conservative politicians could have avoided without changing policies.

Yet ironically, these riots during a leadership election give the party a unique opportunity to turn a page and turn their back on Farage-type populism. The signs are they will not take that opportunity.

Attacks by right-wing thugs on hotels housing asylum seekers can be directly linked to the decision by the last Conservative Government to call those refugees that come to the UK by small boats from France “illegal”, and their failure to process asylum claims quickly. Attacks on mosques reflect the Conservative party tolerating, even at the most senior level within the party, Islamophobic language.

The 2021 Nationality and Borders Act, introduced by Priti Patel, criminalised those who arrived in the UK without authorisation even if they subsequently claimed asylum.

From that point on, Conservative politicians almost without exception referred to anyone crossing the Channel in small boats as illegal migrants, and much of the media followed suit.

This had no policy purpose. This act, unlike subsequent legislation, didn’t stop the Government from processing asylum claims, and anyone who successfully claimed asylum was not immediately arrested because they had come here illegally. Most ‘illegal migrants’ who came via small boats claimed asylum, and most of those claims were granted.

So why introduce the term ‘illegal migrant’ for asylum seekers if it made no difference? If you talk about refugees, that immediately brings to mind people who are seeking refuge from war or persecution, which naturally generates sympathy for the victim.

If instead, you talk about illegal migrants, that brings to mind criminality rather than sympathy. This is classic right-wing populism: create a category of people who are outsiders and do what you can to demonise them.

Of course, this was not the only aspect of how the Conservatives treated asylum seekers that was gratuitously inflammatory.

Cutting back on resources to process asylum claims meant a large backlog of people were caught in limbo waiting for Government decisions, many of which the Government housed in hotels.

Those being processed were not allowed to work. This was a gift to those like Nigel Farage who could suggest that “illegal migrants” were being given free accommodation at the taxpayers’ expense.

More generally, Conservative rhetoric encouraged the idea that the UK could be highly selective about the countries from where asylum claims would be considered, which goes against the whole concept of a refugee. Calling them “illegal” was a rhetorical device to make that seem acceptable.

All this encourages racists to attack the hotels where asylum seekers are staying waiting for their claims to be processed. It doesn’t excuse that behaviour, nothing does, but by denigrating those who should have our (provisional) sympathy it makes it easier for racist thugs to believe that such attacks are justified. Elite rhetoric can easily normalise far-right views and behaviour.

The new Labour government very quickly started using the term “irregular” rather than “illegal” migration for those coming here via small boats. In response James Cleverly, one of the candidates for leader of the Conservative party, said: “Changing ‘illegal migration’ to ‘irregular migration’ will be seen as an invitation to the people smugglers.”

Another, Robert Jenrick, tweeted “you misspelt illegal”. A third candidate is Priti Patel, who started the whole thing off.

Islamophobia is a generic problem in the Conservative Party. Prime Minister David Cameron had no problem joining an Islamophobic campaign against Sadiq Khan for mayor of London, with remarks he later had to apologise for.

In a more recent contest for London mayor, then-Conservative MP Lee Anderson had the whip suspended for saying “Islamists” have “got control” of Khan, but many Conservative MPs went on the record to criticise that suspension. The deputy prime minister, Oliver Dowden, declined to say whether Anderson’s comments were Islamophobic.

Baroness Warsi, former co-chairwoman of the Conservative party, has said that the party is using anti-Muslim rhetoric as a campaign tool. Suella Braverman, a former Conservative home secretary, suggested that Islamists are in control of the UK, with sharia law and “the Islamist mob” taking over communities.

Former Conservative Prime Minister Boris Johnson wrote about the niqab, a face-covering veil worn by some Muslim women, as resembling “letter boxes” and compared those who wore them to bank robbers.

Conservative MP Nusrat Ghani claimed that a party whip told her that she had been sacked from her role as transport minister because her Muslim faith “was making colleagues uncomfortable”.

That Islamophobia remains. Returning to the contest to be party leader, Jenrick recently said that anyone publicly shouting, “God is the Greatest” in Arabic, should be immediately arrested. Imagine the reaction if a candidate from any political party had said that anyone shouting “hallelujah” should be immediately arrested.

If the Conservative Party uses anti-Muslim rhetoric as a campaign tool, whether against political opponents or internally, then it has to shoulder some responsibility for rioters who attack mosques.

The fact that over 50% of Conservative party members have a negative attitude toward Muslims, and almost half think Islam is a threat to the British way of life, is no excuse for Islamophobic statements from Conservative MPs and ministers. Nor is political pressure from Farage and Reform an excuse.

A former Conservative Prime Minister once sacked a Conservative minister for a racist speech, even though that speech was pretty popular among many voters.

There is therefore a precedent for the Conservatives to draw a line that they do not cross on both racism itself and populist language which encourages violence against minorities.

Rather than keeping Farage close and competing for those who vote for Reform by mimicking what Farage does, the Conservatives could attempt to portray Farage as unacceptably extreme. One way to do this became evident during the election, by highlighting Farage’s links to Russia and his lack of support for Ukraine.

Ironically, the riots have provided another opportunity. The comments by Farage immediately after the murders in Southport have rightly been condemned. Among Conservative voters at least, these recent events have led to a large decline in Farage’s popularity. There may be no better time for a Conservative leader to draw that line as Edward Heath once did.

Unfortunately for all of us that hasn’t happened yet. At the time of writing, the bookie’s favourite to be the next leader of the Conservative party is Jenrick, who thinks asylum seekers should be called “illegal” and who thinks anyone saying “God is the Greatest” in Arabic should be immediately arrested. 

The reason he is the favourite to win may reflect the views of Conservative party members, but those in turn reflect a right-wing press that demonises immigrants and Muslims. Other candidates for leader have largely kept quiet in the face of the race riots their party’s rhetoric has encouraged.

The root cause of the Conservative Party’s continuing use of right-wing populist language and actions is in my view economic. Few Conservative MPs seem prepared to countenance moving to the left on economic issues, by for example following popular opinion and proposing to raise taxes to get better public services.

That forces them to rely on socially conservative policies to win votes, and to give those issues salience among enough voters they end up becoming, populists, demonising minorities and encouraging racists.